Luc Guilliey v OCAPAC Mauritius Holding Ltd (Mauritius)

A contract may provide the contractual basis for payment of a statutory end-of-year gratuity. The employer’s obligation is discharged if the contractual payment is at least the statutory minimum calculated by reference to the employee’s monthly basic wage or salary. Contractual annual basic salary and statutory basic wage or salary are distinct concepts. A clear contract dividing an agreed annual sum into 12 salary instalments and a thirteenth gratuity instalment is compatible with the statutory scheme. Where the contractual wording is clear, rules requiring recourse to common intention or resolving ambiguity against the stipulating party cannot be used to rewrite it.

The appellant was employed by the respondent under terms providing for an annual basic salary payable in 13 instalments: 12 monthly salary payments and a statutory end-of-year gratuity equivalent to one month’s salary. He alleged that this structure unlawfully included the gratuity within his annual salary and that the respondent’s failure to pay an additional gratuity amounted to a contractual breach and constructive unfair dismissal under section 36(4) of the Employment Rights Act 2008.

The Industrial Court dismissed the claim on 8 June 2020. The Supreme Court of Mauritius quashed that decision and, on the merits, held on 29 August 2024 that no additional gratuity was payable. The central issue before the Privy Council was whether the contract and the End of the Year Gratuity Act 2001 required payment of a further gratuity.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The contractual terms were clear and unambiguous. The Terms defined annual basic salary as annual fixed pay excluding fluctuating earnings, while the Country Annex expressly took priority and provided for 12 monthly salary instalments plus a thirteenth statutory gratuity instalment.
2. Sections 3(1) and 3(2)(a) of the End of the Year Gratuity Act 2001 establish a statutory minimum, indicated by the words not less than. Section 3(3)(c) permits an agreed contractual gratuity or bonus to discharge the statutory obligation where the contractual payment is at least the statutory minimum.
3. Contractual annual basic salary and statutory basic wage or salary are separate concepts. Dividing the agreed annual sum into 13 equal instalments meant that 12 instalments were monthly basic salary, including December’s salary, and the thirteenth was the statutory gratuity. The formula complied with the Act.
4. There was nothing improper in contracting for payment of a statutory gratuity or in fixing its amount by a formula conforming to the Act. Payment under the Country Annex therefore discharged the respondent’s statutory and contractual obligation.
5. Because the terms were unambiguous, article 1156 of the Mauritian Civil Code and the other interpretive rules relied on could not justify recourse to extrinsic evidence or modification of the contract. Section 5(5) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act 1974 governed enactments, not contracts. The constructive-dismissal claim consequently failed.

• Privy Council: Appeal as of right under section 81(1)(b) of the Constitution of Mauritius dismissed on 11 June 2026: [2026] UKPC 25.
• Supreme Court of Mauritius (Appellate Jurisdiction): Quashed the Industrial Court’s decision and, by agreement, considered the merits. On 29 August 2024 it held that no additional gratuity was payable.
• Industrial Court: Dismissed the claim on 8 June 2020 for disclosing no valid cause of action.